“Immigration reform” as proposed by both sides nearly always includes some sort of amnesty “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. And no real reform of the way we decide who gets to come here and who does not. Not to mention the wide-open borders we make but a feigned attempt to enforce.

· In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

· (H)ouseholds with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children)...had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

· Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

(Emphasis ours.)

Clearly the answer is not to make illegal aliens legal. Because that actually increases their use of government programs. Which makes sense - once “out of the shadows” they are then free to get in the sunshine-washed government money lines.

Nearly everything anyone is proposing as “immigration reform” should be preempted by something simple and rational - a financial means test.

If you are going to be on one or more government programs when you get here - you don’t get here. And if you are already here and on one or more programs - you can’t advance your residency status.

Applying to be a guest worker? A resident alien? A citizen? Illegally here and want a path to citizenship? Means tests all round.

Some pro-amnesty folks will respond:

“That’s an argument for welfare reform, not opposition to ‘immigration reform.’”

To which we respond:

“Fine - go first reform welfare, and then get back to us on your definition of ‘immigration reform.’”

We simply cannot afford to continue being the blank check to the planet.

Seton Motley is the founder and president of Less Government. He is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, and activist.

Please feel free to follow him on Twitter and Facebook - it’s his kind of stalking.